9/11 Terrorist Plotters to be Tried in NYC

Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that 5 terrorist plotters from 9/11 would be brought from Gitmo to NYC to be tried in federal court. Some of the rogues are Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh and others whose names cannot be pronounced.

The announcement has caused a firestorm not only in the political community but also in the legal community. Perhaps the greatest gripe is that these terrorists will be afforded all the liberties entitled to a US citizen. There are also worries about turning the trial into a lengthy 3 ring circus. Then there are about 20 more reasons, pro and con for this action that I am sure our contributors would like to share their opinion about.

NEW YORK (AP) — In what could be one of the biggest counterterrorism seizures in U.S. history, federal prosecutors sought to take over four U.S. mosques, a New York City skyscraper and 100 acres in Prince William County owned by a Muslim organization suspected of being controlled by the Iranian government.

Prosecutors on Thursday filed a civil complaint in federal court against the Alavi Foundation, seeking the forfeiture of more than $500 million in assets.

The seizures include land in the Catharpin area. The addresses listed on the federal criminal complaint are 4300 and 4204 Aldie Road

In the Iranian case, there are ties to the funding of nuclear weapons. It appears that the property was just that: property. Nothing nefarious has been found at the site, according to other sources.

Post navigation

32 Thoughts to “9/11 Terrorist Plotters to be Tried in NYC”

That’s the ticket, bring them to New York. Wow what a brilliant plan. Won’t be any problems with security there! Unbelievable. So let me get this straight, Guantanamo provides absolute physical isolation to the citizens of the US from any attempt to free the terrorists by force, and yet we are going to bring them to one of the heaviest populated areas in the US. One, by the way, that has already been the scene of two horrific attacks. Somehow I don’t think this administration will be getting many votes from New Yorkers in several years. So these guys are now going to be treated as anyone who has gotten arrested for punching someone in a bar. Same rules and regs apply. They’ve got to be laughing their collective a&&es off!

I haven’t figures out why they are being brought to NYC. I haven’t heard a reason to bring them that even makes sense. Was something done at Gitmo that would make them ineligible for military tribunal? Is this a political ploy?

So a few things happened at Gitmo that people are upset about. Big deal, so make sure it doesn’t happen again and move on, but no lets move them to where this could never happen again. I would have to think the people in New York would have a harder time controlling their anger than the military at Gitmo, of course I CAN’T IMAGINE WHY. Once again political correctness has trumped common sense to the point of endangering New Yorkers once again! Idiots! This is one for the history books, and it has Obama written all over it.

Is it all political correctness or are there legal reasons for making the move? Would those things done at Gitmo throw a case out? That is what I am trying to determine. It doesn’t look like the current administration is trying to soften things since they are seeking the death penalty. And I heard Eric Holder say terrorism and terrorist at least 50 times with my own 2 ears.

What legal reasons? Gitmo was business as usual until a few photos turned up, and now suddenly we want to change the prisoner’s status from ‘enemy combatant’ to ‘civilian alleged terrorist’ and give them all the opportunities to have this whole thing overturned, or at least drag out for years at our expense. Remember it took 7 years to put the sniper away, and why? There was no possible defense whatsoever in his case, and yet we managed to drag it out for that long. I’m sure the terrorists weren’t read their now bestowed Miranda Rights. That alone could blow this out of the water!

M-H, we have a well established criminal justice system in the United States. We have tried and convicted hundreds of terrorists in the past, with a 95 percent conviction rate. It is customary to, whenever possible, hold a criminal in the same jurisdiction in which it occurred (ie. trial by a jury of your peers).

I imagine that, since most of the murders on that tragic day too place in New York, and, since the attacks are so infamous that there would be no place in the United States that would make it more or less possible to seat an unbiased jury, the Department of Justice decided that New York was the appropriate place.

I understand that terrorism has achieved it’s aim, and caused many Americans to lose their heads, and make childish assumptions about the invincibility of cowards and the impotence of the most powerful nation this earth has ever seen. However, I can assure you that our criminal justice system is perfectly capable of trying and convicting these men.

By the way, the conviction rate at Guantanamo, where a functioning justice system has obviously NOT been established in 8 years, is less than 2 percent. We are not a banana republic. We cannot hold people indefinitely without charging them with a crime. There is no need for a military tribunal to convict these men. It’s a slam dunk, to borrow a phrase. They will be convicted, and America’s standing in the world will benefit from this demonstration that we are a nation of laws whose principles cannot be shaken by terrorism.

And, yes, little Alamo, we are quite capable of preventing the prisoners from escaping.

Hey LBH, kiss my little @ss! I don’t insult or vilify people and I expect you to be man or woman enough not to either. Freedom of speech don’t you know! Just like every liberal, if you don’t agree with them then pull some childish tactic. Grow up.

Second Alamo has always been polite to people here, LBH, even when he doesn’t agree with them. I will vouch for him going back to day 1.

I also think SA might have brought up a valid point–where does Miranda fit in? They were captured by the military and I doubt seriously if they were miranda’ed. I would hate for any of these people to walk because of something like that.

Additionally, I donn’t think anyone is worried about them escaping. I think many of us are worried about someone trying to spring them, using the most heinous of methods. Very hard to spring someone in Cuba.

If I recall public opinion had O.J. as guilty as the devil too when he ran from the police with a gun, mask, and cash yet he walked free as a bird. It all depends on the jury, not the truth. Technicalities could get these guys off, so forget about whether they are guilty of anything. Guilt now has to be reestablished beyond reasonable doubt, and in this day everything is in doubt. Even the meaning of simple words as Clinton proved. So don’t count your chickens before they hatch. Best case they are convicted as expected, but it can only get better for them from there. This is nothing more than going through the legal motions while expecting the outcome not to change. It’s sort of like saying a person isn’t dead because the death certificate hasn’t been filled out.

Are we saying here we think that military tribunals don’t have the same burden of proof?

Would there be a jury for a trial at Gitmo?

I am curious about a jury of one’s peers? How do you get a jury of one’s peers for KSM?

What would we have done with the German leader in WWII if we had captured him? Would we have brought him to the USA? I know we brought POWs here. Some of that thinking was to get transport ships back from Europe. I don’t know what was done with Japanese POWS.

The primary problem to holding a civilian trial for KSM is not the slim chance he might be acquitted. It is the absolute certainty that this trial will be an intelligence bonanza for Al-Qeada and other terrorists organizations.

The defense in any criminal case is entitled to complete access to the prosecution’s records and information. That means KSM’s lawyers will know precisely how American intelligence tracked down KSM, and will know what methods were effective and what weren’t. The will have the opportunity to cross examine witnesses for the prosecution, which means those witnesses will necessarily have to give up information valuable to terrorist organizations.

We did this already in 1993 after the first World Trade Center bombing with the blind sheik. The result was disastrous for America. Though the blind sheik (Omar Abdel-Rahman) was found guilty, the trial was the biggest intelligence coup in Al-Qeada’s history. Osama bin Laden and his associates got there hands on every bit of the prosecution’s information – all with the assistance of Abdel-Rahman’s lawyer, Lynn Stewart. The exact same thing will happen again with KSM.

A military tribunal can judge KSM, and without people American security in jeopardy.

Sometimes, I miss the old days when we didn’t worry about trivialities like trials when dealing with the likes of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh and the rest of that bunch… sigh. I guess I’m just a sentimental fool… Executive Orders 11095, 12036, and 12333 spoiled everything! I sure miss the old days… when it was easier to dispense with our enemies (with extreme prejudice, as the orders used to be given… to avoid use of the word assassination). sigh (again) 🙁

I’ll bet soldiers will be more apt to finish the job on the battle field knowing what is taking place now. Especially after those very same people have been trying to take your life. After all they are participating in a ‘war’ whether the administration wants to consider the other side enemy combatants or not. Besides, how can you fight a war without an enemy? It’s like the sound of one hand clapping.

Yea Opinion, I miss the good old days too. Like when you were allowed to defend yourself when provoked without all the bleeding heart questions as to why you felt it necessary to defend yourself. Back in the day when you went to war and actually had the right to shoot those trying to shoot you instead of having to worry about their legal rights first, or what the folks back home might think. Yep, those were the days, as Archie would say!

@Second-Alamo
I hear yea… Second-Alamo… I hear yea. When I get all misty eyed thinking about the old days… choked up about the good times… teary eyed thinking about all of those bad old places we fought in the past… nostalgic as I look at the ribbons and medals from past adventures… and just want to go some faraway exotic place with good weather, great food and nice beaches where there are bad people who would like to hurt Americans… and shoot a few of them (and I do have a lot of airline miles I need to use before they expire). 🙂

Funny thing is O, that is exactly what those over there are thinking! All the time. The difference is they don’t seem to have anything better to do. I’d suggest giving them all cable TV, but there’s never anything on worth watching, and so that wouldn’t work. On the other hand if America doesn’t take the offense, then how does all this conflict end? We weren’t on the offense even though there had been several attacks before 9/11, and so it’s obvious that doing nothing wasn’t the solution to stopping the attacks. The sooner people accept the fact that there is little we can do to change their way of thinking other than dialing our country back to the 1900’s and start preaching from the Koran, the sooner they will realize that we have little choice but to fight.

Matt, your explanation about giving up intelligence makes a lot more sense than all the blathering and whining I have heard on TV out of both sides.

It sounds like there are just more expedient ways to handle things like this than a marathon set of public trails….but what do I know. I am sort of one of those people who believes in human rights and not civil rights when it comes to ones enemies. But I am old school.

SA, are you telling us not to try to win over the hearts and minds of our enemy? I knew we were in trouble when the Iraq war correspondence changed their rhetoric from WMD to hearts and minds.

Speaking of nothing worth watching, are you going to watch WWII in HD? The trailers look great. The infomercial says it is more like Band of Brothers than Ken Burns The War. I just want to see it in color.

@Second-Alamo
Actually, one of our most effective weapons in Afghanistan is to simply pay Taliban foot soldiers more money than the Taliban pays them (which we are doing at the moment whenever possible). The simple fact is most of the folks we are fighting aren’t doing it for the ideology… they are doing it for the money. It’s actually cheaper to buy them off than it is to hunt them down and kill them. Such is life.

Are there any charges against these individuals?
They have been languishing at Guantanamo for up to eight years now – and like the Ugars, with no charges (and no crimes against the US) against them.

The Sixth Amendment – gives certain rights to a speedy trail. We are a nation of Laws and the Laws should be enforced and applied. We look at other countries and talk about Human Rights, and CIvil Rights, and Political Prisoners – yet, we hold prisoners the same way – indefinitely, with no proven charges. I feel it is not right. Yes, the Bill of Rights should not apply to enemy combatants – but the Right to a speedy trial is OUR right to charge the criminal for their deeds, not the enemies Right.

Why have we not moved forward with the Military Tribunals? Back in 2006, the Supreme Court handed down a decision saying that they were illegal – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_military_commission . And the cases that have gone through the tribunals have not fared too well – some being acquitted and others with small sentences.

I did not want to see them come to the US, and be given all of our rights and be tried in Federal Court – but I do believe they are entitled to be charged and tried. We have not done that. I also do not want to see them getting off on technicalities.

The problem with all of this is very similar to that of trying to put Al Capone away in the 1920’s. Even though the government knew he was the one calling the shots it wasn’t him who pulling the trigger. So what did the government finally get him on………….tax evasion. I sure hope these terrorist guys owe us back taxes!

C’mon Alamo, all that panic, all that rage, what does it gain for you?

President Bush announced his desire and intention to bring the 9/11 terrorists to justice eight years ago. Three years ago he announced his intention to do so in a legitimate court of law IN THE UNITED STATES. It’s on tape, if you won’t take it from me.

Did your TV tell you to panic when Zacharias Moussaoui was tried and convicted right here in Virginia? I doubt it. But if it had, would you have obliged? No. And why not? Think about that.

Look, I understand that you are afraid of another attack. We all are. I get that. But I don’t agree with you that the sky is not falling on this one. I don’t agree that we should compromise something as central as our committment to due process and the rule of law just because we are afraid. If this is just your way of being a good Republican, then I submit that it is possible to oppose the President and keep your composure at the same time.

Listen, I welcome you in the Republican party, and I welcome you as an interesting voice on a website that provides me with a fascinating mix of local and national information and opinion. But we do need to have a degree of perspective before we wail, whine, and shudder at every news item, even those involving terrorism.

A double negative reversed the intended meaning of my Chicken Little reference. M-H if you would be so kind as to remove the word “not” I will not only be grateful, I will also promise not to be more polite to Mr. Alamo.

I’ve kept my yap shut about this one. I’ll trust these jokers (in the Obama Justice Department) until they give me a reason not to trust their them (or their judgement). I figure it’s not me the administration has to explain this to, but rather the families of the 9/11 victims…..and I get the initial impression that they are just pleased as punch about this whole thing.

If you listen to yourself very carefully you will here the faint echoes of those on September 10th 2001. I’m sure their were those such as yourself voicing the same opinion back then. Then came September 11th. A whole new era erupted, and I’m not ready to go back to the naive thinking of September 10th just yet. Call it panic if you will, but they certainly could have picked a less troublesome location than the one they did, and there is no guarantee that the outcome will be as everyone has predicted. BTW, I live hundreds of miles away from NY so it isn’t a matter of being afraid, but more a matter of concern for those that will have to deal with this for months or years to come.

KSM is not a criminal. Therefore, he should not have a criminal trial. He is an irregular combatant, aka an unlawful combatant. He also admitted his involvement in 9/11 and other terrorist activities. So why does there need to be a trial? Actually under the Geneva Convention, he cannot be tried as a criminal, if one wants to give him rights as a POW.

Also, of course we can hold him indefinitely, or at least until the war is over.